G.R. No.

L-49084 October 10, 1985

MATILDE ALAVADO in her own right and as natural guardian of IDA VILMA,
IMELDA AND ROLANDO, all surnamed ALAVADO petitioner, vs. CITY
GOVERNMENT OF TACLOBAN (ENGINEER'S OFFICE AND WORKMEN'S
COMPENSATION COMMISSION, now the LABOR APPEALS AND REVIEW
STAFF), respondents.

FACTS:

Late Ricardo A. Alavado was employed as a carpenter-foreman by the City

Engineer's Office, Tacloban City with a daily wage of P13.12. His last day of service was
on 19th of April 1974 since he was on leave from 23rd if April, 1974 to 23rd of May, 1974.
On 6th of August, 1974 when he reported for work, he was no longer under the
supervision of respondent city. He suffered severe headache when he was supervising
laborers on a construction project in Tolosa, Leyte. He died the following day of CVA-
Cerebral Hemorrhage. Matilde Alavado, surviving spouse and the petitioner on this case,
filed a claim for death benefits in her own behalf and in behalf of her minor children.
Respondent city filed a notice of controversion of the claimant's right to compensation
however, on 31st of March, 1975, the hearing officer of Regional Office in Tacloban City
issued an award granting petitioner the sum of P5,200.00 as death benefits and P200.00
as reimbursement of burial expenses. Respondent city appealed.

On 29th of November, 1975, a decision was rendered by the Commission

dismissing petitioner's death benefits claim on the ground of lack of filiation between the
claimant and the deceased. The Commission held that the marriage certificate from the
Parish where the Matilde and Ricardo’s marriage was solemnized is not a valid proof. It
should be the original marriage contract or marriage certificate issued by the Local Civil
Registrar. The baptismal certificates of their children which was presented by the
claimant, was also insufficient in proving the status of dependency.

ISSUE:

Whether or not a marriage certificate attesting to the fact that claimant and deceased were
in fact married is considered satisfactory proof of marital status in the absence of any and
whether or not Matilda is entitled for the death benefit.
RULING:

In accordance to Section 5(bb) of Rule 31 of the Rules of Court provides for the
disputable presumptions which states that such presumptions are satisfactory if not
contradicted, but may be contradicted and overcome by other evidence. It includes
―That a man and a woman deporting themselves as husband and wife have entered into
a lawful contract of marriage.

It was wrote finished when Matilda, the claimant and petioner in this case wase
able to provide a certified true copy of the Marriage Certificate from the Local Civil
Registrar. It was also said that Courts look upon this presumption with great favor and it
could not be lightly repelled. It may be rebutted only by cogent proof to the contrary or
by evidence of a higher than ordinary quality. The rationale behind this presumption
could be found in the case of Adong vs. Cheong Seng Gee, which runs this wise --- The
basis of human society throughout the civilized world is that of marriage. Marriage in this
jurisdiction is not only a civil contract but it is a new relation, an institution in the
maintenance of which the public is deeply interested. Consequently, every intendment of
the law leans toward legalizing matrimony. Persons dwelling together in apparent
matrimony are presumed, in the absence of any counter-presumption or evidence special
to the case, to be in fact married. The reason is that such is the common order of society,
and if the parties were not what they thus hold themselves out as being, they would be
living in the constant violation of decency and of law. A presumption established by our
Code of Civil Procedure is 'that a man and a woman deporting themselves as husband and
wife have entered into a lawful contract of marriage. (Sec. 334, No. 28) Semper -
praesumitur pro matrimonio or Always presume marriage. Likewise, the declaration of
the husband is competent evidence to show the fact of marriage. Similarly, a witness,
who was present at the time the marriage was solemnized, is a competent witness to
establish the existence of said marriage. Indeed, public and open cohabitation as husband
and wife, birth and baptismal certificates of children born unto them after the celebration
of the questioned marriage, and a statement of such marriage in subsequent document
were held to be competent evidence as proof of said marriage. Therefore, the decision
29th of November set aside the decision of Workmen’s Compensation commission and
the award of the earing Office of Tacloban City is reinstated.